Are Nice Vegans Making Us Look Bad? Vegan Lifestyle Articles From All-Creatures.org

FROM

All is not lost, however, for “nice” vegans. While
they cannot serve the norm enforcement role of the zealots, they can provide
an equally-vital function: supporting zealots. A few short words of
encouragement can make all the difference after a difficult rescue. Protest
signs need to be paid for. And someone needs to pick up the occasional
activist who ends up in jail. But this should not confuse us from the
central role of the social movement: to inspire “zealots” who will
nonviolently confront.

Social change depends on norm-enforcing zealots, not
passive supporters.

"Don’t push people too much.” “Avoid being judgmental.” “Be nice.”
Mantras like these are common even in radical animal rights circles. Yet,
one the most distinguished figures in the history of sociology shows us that
when it comes to social change, “being nice” doesn’t cut it. What the
animals need, rather is a strong, public, and collective stand -- stands
such as the Liberation Pledge -- because only such “zealotry” can create the
powerful norms necessary for real and permanent change.

Gandhi was a classic "zealot" who had the support of a dense social network.

James Coleman was a name spoken with reverence when I was at the
University of Chicago. A pioneer in the application of mathematical methods
to sociology, Coleman incited controversy by showing, statistically, that
children of color benefited immensely from being in integrated schools but
that these benefits were being undermined by “white flight. ” This unpopular
finding nearly led to his ouster in the 1970s; today, in contrast, his
thesis is widely accepted. But while Coleman is most known for his
breakthroughs in educational policy and sociological methods, one of his
most cited papers is on the role of "zealots" in social change, and on the
two factors that allow for such zealots to develop.

Coleman begins his famous paper with a classic question: Why do people
contribute to projects for the public good? Each individual, after all, is
usually not necessary to the completion of such projects, so it would only
seem “rational” for most of us to sit out. This is what social scientists
call “free riding” – backing out on a community cleanup project, for
example, because the streets will probably be cleaned regardless of whether
we personally help out. It’s easier for us to sit back and wait for someone
else to do all the work!

But Coleman made an important observation: While free riding is quite
common, occasionally we also see the opposite -- extraordinary contributions
to the common good despite the lack of a selfish interest. In movements
ranging from Gandhi’s Independence Movement to anti-authoritarian Solidarity
in Poland, a small number of people became so enthused by a project that
they bore extraordinary costs to see them come to life. How did such
movements induce contributions by so many (sometimes at the cost of the
contributors’ lives) when the personal benefits to the individuals were so
small?

The answer, Coleman, argued was “zealots” who would take it upon
themselves to hold others accountable. Zealots were the ones willing to make
personal sacrifices to ensure that others cooperated with a new vision of
the common good. The zealots’ primary tool? Denying “free-riders” the
benefits of a movement, or socially sanctioning them for refusing to pitch
in. (This was exactly the role of pledge-takers in the movement against
foot-binding.) But unlike many scholars at the time, Coleman sought to
understand such zealots by looking, not to individual motivations, but
rather two elements of social structure.

The first element was the existence of a dense social network. Large
public projects, such as social movements, require social connections to
facilitate communication, coordination, and accountability among movement
activists. Without such connections, each individual activist, looking only
at the costs and benefits for themselves, would have no incentive to become
a “zealot.”

Networks, once formed, have power to overcome self interest with
community encouragement and support. Consider the example of team sports.
Coleman pointed out that team sports often motivate people far more than
individual sports, despite the fact that the rewards for team sports go to
the team as a whole rather than just the individual. This happens because
the team provides both encouragement and sanctions to ensure that team
members continue to contribute.

The same is true, of course, of social movements. Networks and
communities help individuals see beyond their selfish interests and inspire
them to keep fighting for the common good. This is not only a solution to
burnout; it also makes activists fight harder than if they were fighting
alone, as they find value in the bonds of solidarity and acknowledgment from
being part of a team.

The second necessary element of social structure is the development of
mechanisms, within the social network, to encourage "zealots." No one likes
to be the zealot – the person in the room who has to make unusual efforts to
point out that something has gone terribly wrong – but someone has to do the
job. The only way to ensure that such zealots continue doing the work they
are doing, in turn, is to create channels through which other community
members can affirm the zealots’ work. Gandhi, for example, had no inherent
personal interest in confronting British rule (much less facing beatings and
imprisonment). But he was sustained in this costly work by the
acknowledgment and support of countless non-zealot supporters.

If Coleman’s analysis is correct – and zealots are crucial to sustaining
new norms – then the conventional wisdom (i.e. “be nice”) in animal rights
is serving as a major stumbling block to our success. We should be
encouraging – not dissuading – zealots, as zealots are the driving force
that will lead to the creation of new norms. They are the ones who are
willing to go on offense, to undertake large personal sacrifices to ensure
that new ways of thinking are affirmed. Indeed, experimental work by
researchers at CalTech and other institutions supports the notion that norms
are created by social confrontation rather than persuasion. (Moral norms,
according to this work, are defined by the willingness of society to
sanction those who violate them.)

All is not lost, however, for “nice” vegans. While they cannot serve the
norm enforcement role of the zealots, they can provide an equally-vital
function: supporting zealots. A few short words of encouragement can make
all the difference after a difficult rescue. Protest signs need to be paid
for. And someone needs to pick up the occasional activist who ends up in
jail. But this should not confuse us from the central role of the social
movement: to inspire “zealots” who will nonviolently confront.

Coleman’s career, interestingly, was a powerful example of his own
“zealot” thesis in action. Coleman was unapologetic in condemning bad ideas,
and he bore a huge social cost in doing so. But he fought through the
backlash and ended up revolutionizing 3 fields of thought. We should follow
both his theory and his personal example in being unrelenting, brave, and
even confrontational in support of what we know to be right.

Fair Use Notice: This document, and others on our web site, may contain copyrighted
material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners.
We believe that this not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use
of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).
If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use,
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.